Posts by SuccessCase

@xperroni "they exist in a different market altogether" of course there is segmentation and to say they exist in different markets is playing semantics as you yourself prove by saying Samsung target the upper end of THE market" (my emphasis. THE = definite article covering upper, middle and lower price points), so it seems you're calling yourself a bit daft. Plus, of course you are simply wrong, for the reason that for what you are saying to be true, the must rarely be users who walk into a store selling Huawei handsets and purchase one after considering buying an iPhone, albeit at a somewhat different price point. There will be plenty who have had the thought, "hmm, this vastly cheaper handset is actually pretty damned good for my needs in comparison with that lovely shiny iPhone I was just looking at. Maybe I should go with this one instead"

There will also, of course, also be plenty who's thought process has gone the other way "hmmm this precision metal iPhone really does look lovely under the spotlights of this cool Apple Store. It does cost more, but hell, I'll go for it"

Oh dear, another commentard who has no clear appreciation of the difference between secret and private. When in the middle of a dinner party, I go to the loo and lock the door, it's not a secret what I'm doing. I'm not trying to cover my tracks. I don't think anyone particularly cares or finds value in being able to look at me on the throne. But it is, nevertheless private, and no one else's business. So every one of your points along the lines "no one cares," so therefore "get over yourself, privacy is irrelevant" is a straw man argument. Attempting to paint me and others who argue for privacy like me as egotists entirely misses the point. I don't think anyone cares what I'm doing in my front-room this evening, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where any fool can just wander in, sit down and start watching.

"how is that bringing anything forward?"

The S5 was announced earlier in the year than the S4. In an unexpected move this year Samsung made their announcement in Feb at MWC in Barcelona. Last year they booked out a New York music hall in March and had something of a bizarre/disastrous/embarrassing product launch. It seemed rapid S3 sales had gone to their heads and they became fixated with "bigger," "better," "showier" only to screw-up royally on the "better" part of the equation.

"However you still need to have a proper hoover around the place from time to time."

That's what I found to be most disappointing about my Roomba. It makes the room look very clean (its great for that, and I'm grateful for the reduced workload), the problem I find is it doesn't take enough fine dust out of circulation. Fine dust seems to go straight through the filter. I know you can't eliminate dusting, but if the Roomba is covering 60-70% of the horizontal surfaces in my flat, I would expect the fact it runs frequently on a schedule means it should reduce the amount of dusting required. But it hasn't done, not even by a tiny bit. Indeed, if anything it seems to make the fine dust situation worse, blowing the stuff out over the surfaces everywhere it goes.

Would be interested to hear from anyone who has the HEPA filter model, if that does a better job with dust.

In the voice of Alan Rickman:

"I'm an exceptional Barista Mr Tachicoma.

Now where's your corporate headquarters, I'm going to take down your office building."

Re: standards?

It's a brand values thing. Mercedes, BMW, Landrover, Ferrari etc will go with Apple. Ford, Vauxhall, Skoda, Trabant will go with Android.

Re: Thank You Tim Cook!

I apologise for quibbling about a quibble, but the problem with the initial quibble is that people frequently do usefully apply terminology on a kind of kinaesthetic basis, on a basis of a feeling about the entity, without independent reference to actual physical attributes. So if I the 1930's someone had said to me "Al Capone is the biggest criminal in Chicago" I wouldn't have been confused by this and then from that point on been on the lookout for a very tall or fat mafioso (though he was to all accounts quite fat). The very fact people are not confused by such terminology illustrates there is a common basis for reference based on mood or feeling. It is frequently done and when it is done, language is not the poorer for it. Turning up somewhere new and hearing "x is the biggest game in town" is not useless information just because there is no audited definition of the size of x; it is useful for anyone who wants to know what is most prestigious, most regarded or most notorious. That's the beauty of language, it can be used to express the ephemeral, even if sometimes doing so annoys the pedant or that some of the word-signs we use (like "biggest") are used at times with scientific precision and at other times loosely and colloquially. The meaning of words changes with the context and one of the great beauties of language is how with illogical circular self contained references it can be used to manipulate the context applied. So if I say of the XBox one, "yo bruv it's sick innit," I've imparted a switch of context using "rules" or conventions that have no respect for formal logical syntax, and most people know I'm not suggesting the console is ill. That imparting meaning is done in accord with such imprecise and artful rules is often seen by us techies as an affront; we want a thing before us to be always in all contexts one thing or another but not both, but that does not change how language actually works.

Re: Excellent review; but "flaunting"?

"Apple are also taking a lot of credit for a fingerprint scanner, even though Motorola brought one out in January 2011"

Well fingerprint scanners have been around in one form or another a lot longer than that. The issue, clearly, is implementation. Having to swipe your print is clearly not the ideal solution and touching a sensor is clearly superior.

Re: Apple SSL, yes a concern, which is why I was happy to note, when I read the story, that iOS on my device had already been updated with a patch. Speed of update is a real strength of iOS.

Yes the Apple MagSafe power adaptor was an example of a very good hardware invention and has saved many a MacBook getting dragged to the floor. The iPad Smart Cover was also excellent, and this is a continuation of that work, filed before the MS Surface was released and filed during the period when the initial Smart Cover patent application was still secret. The initial filing is kept secret precisely so such continuations can be worked on.

The Reg's interpretation of the first independent claim is also wrong. All clauses if the independent claims need to be read like a logical AND. So the claim isn't just for two magnetically attached devices communicating with each other, but where each device is also actuated based on the moment of attachment (e.g. Wakes up, comes out of standby etc.). The Register just like to moan about anything with Apple and patent in the title.

Patented inventions are always small steps on from the state of the art. It is the easiest thing to claim a patent is obvious after the fact. The black and Decker Workmate, one of the best Everyman patents ever filed also seemed obvious after the fact (a table top combined with a clamp). In recognition of this the hardest criterion on which to get a patent overturned, is obviousness.

It will advertise a 4 cyclone cell, show pictures of 4 on the box, but the suction hose will only be connected to 2.

Re: meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

It can already done to iDevices through Find My iPhone. The user has the option to put it in lost/stolen mode. No reports of hackers locking users out of their iPhones.

Re: Up against it

I suspect one of Apple's moves into a new category (Tim Cook didn't say they would be inventing a new category), will be the addition of app downloads to a new generation of Apple TV. The point is, though they only have accidental gaming brand credentials, due to supply chain economics, Apple are in a better position to deliver a Next Gen console at - wait for it - low cost, than just about anyone.

I wouldn't be surprised if they release a new Apple TV with a 64bit A8 chip and greatly enhanced GPU. They have the infrastructure and now have the experience of streaming-data and the data centre's to be able to ensure a compelling service is delivered. By doing away with the need for anything more than a network connected device with a local storage cache of flash memory, they can greatly reduce the device production cost as compared with other consoles. Apple have no problem is undercutting the price others can supply at, when their supply chain economies allows them to do so. In the case of an Apple TV streaming device, the cost of the device, requiring no display and only an HDMI output, simply is inherently low, allowing them to preserve their usual margins. I can imaging games will be either rented or purchased as you can currently either rent or purchase movies (though purchase movies don't live on the device). Also if the device is a pure low cost streaming device, no one will be approaching it with any expectation of game ownership or second hand-resale rights as cause a problem for the Xbox one launch. The model will simply be the existing App Store model which millions of customers already understand perfectly and accept for what it is. Many will scoff at the idea of Apple providing a category of device at lower cost, but actually they are perfectly prepared to do it when the device is in a new category and the BOM for how they are doing it is naturally low. So for example, they did this with the iPad when it first launched, which Steve Jobs boasted nobody would be able to match in price. Many were skeptical, but he was right. At first competitors could only get into the market by matching the price of the iPad and having zero margin or even adopting a loss leader model. That has changed now, but it provides illustration of where Apple have pulled a similar move before.

Bear in mind Apple have released a controller API for processing commands from games controllers connected via bluetooth. I can't help but think that is part of a larger move by Apple and I'm not sure using games controllers with iPhone or iPad alone was a big enough market for them to have released the API if that is all they had in mind.

What I don't expect, but what would be really interesting, is if they co-opted Nintendo to provide games and controllers for the new system. I could see this happening because Apple and Nintendo share some fundamental principles (such as focus on excellence in the experience rather than focus on the hardware specs). Of course Nintendo are now suffering because the dedicated games console market is not big enough for every player to get the scale for low enough cost of supply. Nintendo working with Apple, who do have the necessary scale, makes sense on many levels.

@TheVogon, Yes you most certainly would subject the accounts to forensic re-examination before making a multi-billion dollar purchase and HP indeed executed full financial and accounting due diligence and willingly went ahead with the purchase after having done so. The reality is HP for the second time in successive quarters were admitting to having to writing off billions of dollars of value (the first write down related to their EDS business, another bad purchase). The first time you do such a write-down shows careless management, the second, rank incompetence. Meg Whitman knew if she could not rustle up an excuse she would be toast. HP cast around for a scapegoat and subsequently came out with a number of slime-ball slurs against the Autonomy deal they had gone ahead with after executing full financial/accounting due diligence. It was clearly a desperate attempted excuse for their second inexcusable business write down. Additionally you yourself have given the precise reason why HP and any company involved in such a deal should execute due diligence by the fact you have said "sounds like Autonomy's accountants were likely also to blame." You don't spend billions of dollars without checking what you are buying, and checking independently, that the auditors employed by the company you are buying were doing as they were required to do it.

But in any case, so far, no evidence of impropriety has emerged. Tellingly, HP's accountants have not endorsed the company's earlier statements that financial impropriety was involed. To me that says they have adjusted the accounts as requested by Whitman (their customer) and, since they are auditors and have to maintain professional standard, have quietly but tellingly failed to back HP's position that there was fraud at play.

Look, undoubtedly Autonomy "bigged-up" the value of the company. Kevin Lynch does appear to be a salesman of the "if they buy it, that's their look-out" variety, but many would argue that he has simply proven he is a good salesman and effectively maximised the sale value of his company for his shareholders - e.g. he did his job properly. Meg Whitman, on the other hand, in buying it, clearly didn't do hers.

Re: Peak apple?

@ratfox Ok fair enough, It seems you were suggesting 2012 was the peak, however if the numbers going down you are referring too are not the percentage numbers you then proceed to give, you aren't misrepresenting anything. And yes it's true iPhone sales volumes are at the very least close to a peak. It seems the analysts expect every year to be like 2012 with, you know, exponential levels of growth, because that can happen forever if only Apple work hard enough, demographics be damned.

Re: Oh?

No, they wouldn't. The report is right and wrong. It is right as a measure of attitudes here and now, but misleading as a longer term prediction. The BBC currently benefits from having a captive audience. Viewers think they offer quality level X because there is a large number of viewers who are offended by advertising and who value highly the PSB/educational output.

However there is an illusion in these figures (and the BBC know this and so won't act on them). Despite what the article suggests, the BBC would not produce better quality than commercial rivals for less (you only have to be at a sports event and see the difference in work ethic between the grips at commercial production companies and BBC lifers to understand why that is a misinterpretation). The report is in fact suggesting the BBC could earn more because subsets of license fee payers, if able to be targeted through conditional access are prepared to pay more. However what people currently say they are prepared to pay is conditioned by the captive audience effect and lack of exposure to alternatives. This is why the BBC would lose out:

The BBC PSB/educational programming is its best output and much loved by a highly vocal, highly educated *subset* of audience, whilst being subsidised by the masses much of whom don't really care how good it is. Add conditional access and, unless it is replaced by other artificial rules, that subsidy effect goes away. Cost goes up for those who partake of the content and the perception of value for money rebalances at another level.

Now for the large majority of BBC output that is not PSB/educational, the captive audience effect will, fairly quickly, be eroded. The reality is, respondents to this survey aren't OTT subscription service users because they are still, comparatively, rare in the UK market. However, where users do have choice between, say BBC iPlayer and Netflix, when it comes to drama they are swinging very heavily to Netflix (and to watching a greater proportion of drama in general). The simple fact is BBC drama has not been competitive with US drama for ages, but due to having a captive audience and, high levels of inertia, thinking based on TV tropes, and lastly due to high levels of aversion to adverts, the captive audience often don't yet realise how comparatively bad it is. But as Netflix is so ably demonstrating, commercial sector drama doesn't need ads to be viable. Once viewers get to compare Breaking Bad, House of Cards, The Good Wife, Dexter, Sons of Anarchy etc. with UK drama (the original BBC House of Cards, whilst good in it's day, is a good example for the purpose of comparison) and develop the habit of finding new content in new places that are not the BBC, they vote with their feet and quickly abandon the pappyfied, excessively PC, low production value BBC shows. Only Sherlock and Dr Who stand out commercially and there are question marks on them (for reasons I don't have time to go into here).

If the BBC were to survey students, (which I'm sure they are doing) they will be horrified at the results. Since I have an interest in the TV industry, I have been conducting my own informal checking on what students are watching (my daughter is at university and my partners daughter before that). So, yes the sample size is small, yes the questions asked have not been formalised and are limited to students at two universities but also yes, I have been diligently asking and have now sampled across a diverse number of students checking TV viewing habits.

What I am seeing does not look good for the BBC. From what I am seeing, almost all students have iPlayer and most watch TV content via their laptops, but the word is out, and there is an ongoing and rapid switch to Netflix and Love Film. Neither have adverts and amongst student subscribers (where account sharing is rife) time spent watching BBC output is all but wiped out. The level of recommendation to other students is off the scale (the captured audience damn is bursting with a devastating effect). As far as I can see, the BBC is in the process of being wiped out amongst the student population; the next generation of TV viewer. They should be worried. Extremely worried.

Re: Samsung Board Room

"If you want Android I'd look at the Moto G"

Yes I agree. I'm an iPhone user, but if I were to use Android, the Google Nexus handsets and the new Moto G stand out as the best option. The relative sales of Google Nexus versus Samsung it makes it pretty clear to me just how important physical retails stores and relationships with the networks remain.

Two further down votes, This time I suspect it was Krypto the super-dog and Vibe the breakdancing member of the Justice League, what a dude he was. Is it any wonder I prefer Marvel to DC?

Re: Remarkably?

@Andrew Orlowski

I would like to share your confidence consumer choice will resolve such matters. Unfortunately the evidence is to the contrary. While consumer choice is powerful and resolves many matters, it doesn't work too well when the problem at issue is one element or aspect of a service bundle. But one example being international data roaming. A small but highly significant subset of consumers are highly motivated by roaming rates, there is competition in the mobile market throughout Europe. Yet for years international data roaming has remained criminally high and not at all based on cost. Competition has manifestly failed the consumer here. Even if there hasn't been under the table price fixing (and I would not be at all surprised if there had been) there has been tacit, let's not rock the boat, price correlation so even if we aren't quite in cartel territory it's a strong oligopoly effect.

Part of the difficulty is consumers seek convenience more than price advantage which means they do not organise around points of principle on the pricing of sub-services of larger services. High prices can be charged where many services are bundled. Consequently the competitive model we learned about in A Level economics doesn't work and economies of scale are leveraged to deliver bigger profits to the incumbent big business, not the consumer. So we have Supermarkets charging more for fruit and veg than street markets, and the giant B&Q in New Malden charge more for nails and just about everything else than the tiny but superb Cunningham's local hardware store 5 mins away in Raynes Park (yes, plug, no, I have no relationship to them) where you can still buy nails and screws by the gram and buy just a single gram if you prefer. And when business do really bad things consumers still flock to them. Like Sainsbury's in Chelsea, where years ago they were only allowed to build in the Chelsea Harbour area if they built a supermarket of architectural merit and didn't spoil the feel of the neighbourhood with an excessive outward projection of corporate branding. The architect Richard Rogers won the design competition with an inspired and subtle Egyptian design. But the council's lawyers weren't smart enough with the contract. Sainsbury's opened the store for one weekend with the Richard Rogers exterior design, thus fulfilling their contract obligations, then immediately closed it ripped out the brand recessive exterior and replaced it with their normal bright orange corporate branding. If consumers acted on principle, locals would not have frequented the store. Sainsbury's actions were unconscionable, they were clearly negotiating in bad faith and their actions were akin to a big f**k y** to the local community. But of course, depressingly, that is not the case. The store was popular from the outset.

A Google presents the results for terms relevant to a subset of pages across multiple web sites. These sites on the other hand present what is often little more than a new front end for the complete content of a site owned by other people, the contents of which they present under their own front end. I've noticed many websites do something similar with tech question and answer format websites, so you find e.g. the same Stack Overflow question and answer thread republished in its entry multiple times over. It's easy to deal with if Stack Overflow is in the list, just go to Stack Overflow, but for other websites where they are not so well established, often it is difficult to know who the true source is. The true source will find it difficult to build and maintain a brand. They don't get all the credit they deserve for their work. Also often the clones have bad performance which is really bloody annoying if you are grazing across multiple results (though of course the originals also often have bad performance, but it is worse for the clones). I find it rather annoying when websites do this, plus I personally think it is wholly wrong. Ditto the same problem encountered when booking hotels (especially when you can't find the authentic hotel website and all the others deliberately hide the telephone number because they don't want you going direct to the hotel, when and the telephone number for the hotel is all you want to f*!%*ing well look-up). ditto when booking theatre tickets.

Re: it all depends ...

@MyBackDoor a reasonable sounding supposition for the cynical... Without a shred of (non-circumstantial) evidence to support it. If you check out Lawrence Lessig's short TED book, Lesterville, or his longer Republic Lost, you will find an extremely convincing argument for how money works and corrupts the US political system. Anyone elected to the Senate quickly learns money is required to survive and political lobbyists are the source. The Capitol as a business runs almost completely on income from lobbying.

Yet it is well known of all the major tech companies Apple spend by a long way the least on political lobbying. Such is a legacy of Steve Jobs, who, character that he was, had to all accounts, something of a "f*** y**" attitude to giving politicians money. Indeed the two companies who are amongst those spending the most are Google and Amazon. So, amongst those who understand how the political money system works, there is greater registration of eyebrow lift when the Amazon eBook case is mentioned. Just recently Barnes and Noble have announced they are abandoning the Nook eBook reader business earlier than expected and this is because Amazon was granted permission to rip up Agency model contracts and heavily discount eBooks such that all competition is essentially being snuffed out.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/barnes-and-nobles-nook-sales-hurt-by-amazons-lower-e-book-prices

Business Week point out Donna Tart's gripping new novel "The Goldfinch" Kindle price is $7.50, Nook price $14.99. This is the second, classic monopolist step the anti-trust commission was set-up to detect and eliminate. Step 1. Control the market. Step 2. Reduce prices and margins to an extent others can't match to drive them out the market (or out of business). Step 3. Raise prices.

Of course we have no evidence yet for step 3, but on that one, when there is no effective competition, cynicism *is* justified.

Re: Someone in the US needs to grow a brain and actually use it

Some people love to twist history. For years I've been hearing arguments about how Android just happened to look like the iPhone but had been under development for years, so the similarities were just co-incidental. But in the recent book "Dogfight," Google's Chris DeSalvo, working on the Android project, admitted what those who were attentive the first time round already knew. On first seeing the iPhone he said:

“As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’”

People forget Samsung shamelessly copied the iPhone physical design and proved by the point by radically changing their phone style only after they were sued by Apple. Before they changed their style, many of the more vociferous Android users were claiming the similarity was purely co-incidental and Apple had no right to protect it's design language and were bastards for attacking Samsung on that basis. Yet once the S3 was launched and Samsung suddenly had their own design language, the same users were suddenly proclaiming how wonderful it was and how there is no need to copy stupid Apple. They completely (deliberately) failed to see the simple reality that Samsung changed their strategy and proved Apple's point there was no need to copy, only after being sued. Copyright lawyers have a phrase for what Samsung were doing. It is called "camping on" a competitors design.

I'm not saying Apple are whiter than white. These are competitive businesses and everyone has to, to some extent, copy good ideas to compete. However there is a difference between copying a good idea seeking to improve it and executing a new design whilst doing the copying and shamelessly "camping on" a competitors design hoping some of the brand value they have built will rub-off and give you a boost. The former is competing, that latter is unfair, cheesy and wholly lacks class.

Personally I think it is good that a business can ensure it's designs remain distinct. Nokia didn't ever feel the need to copy Apple and style wise they have kept a distinct identity and with regard to hardware design have always been streets ahead of Samsung. As a consequence they garner respect. Sony too are beginning to return to the design strength they once had. As a consequence of the laws being as they are, users aren't fooled by cheap knockoffs a business doesn't get it's design language diluted to the degree it would otherwise be and, some will disagree with this statement, but overall when a company can build a distinct readily identifiable style and identity I think that helps consumers too. I like it that I don't live in a country filled with cheap knock of signage like "McDibbles" or sellers touting crappy counterfeit £70 "iPhons." By all means sell cheap phones, just don't "camp on" the brand another business has worked hard to build.

Re: @SuccessCase (was:Theory)

@jake, Yep it's ignorant conjecture. I alluded to as much in my comment but I guess some people never tire of the opportunities the Internet serves up to find ways to be rude about what others have said. However given now multiple artichokes have exploded - apparently without an explosive device being placed within them, it's kind of fun and would almost be rude *not* to conjecture. There is a mystery to be answered. As for your reasoning I'm not sure farming equipment is so accurate as that there is a guarantee that for all the millions of artichokes grown, fertiliser never gets on the head of the plant. This is after all an exceptional event, so we can expect it is brought about by exceptional, but nevertheless feasible, conditions. How about that at the end of the greenhouse row, the fertiliser feed pipe comes down a vertical and every now and then an end of row artichokes head gets leaked over with fertiliser when it grows against the pipe ? But one piece of conjecture as to how there could be a high level exposure. And while I now remember precious little of my O'Level chemistry, I do know fertiliser + sugar can in the right combination equal explosion. A chemist might be able to easily show my amateur thinking to be way off base, and I don't necessarily believe it myself anyway, but I'm not sure your rebuttal is any less ignorant conjecture than my own so in ignorance we are united.

"Mine hits concrete at least 3 times a week"

If I were you I would see a neurologist and get a check-up done on your nervous system - or drink less.

"Is it conceivable that Chitika's ads are not the whole of advertising on the net?"

Of course you know the answer to that already. They are nothing like the whole of advertising on the web. But it's clear what you are trying to suggest is a little disengenious as the relevant question is if there is any reason to suppose there will be any bias in their numbers. Since Chitika's figures come from ad impressions served via the web, the answer is, "not particularly." There may be some subtle biases based on if Chikita ads tend to be placed more with websites appealing to a particular demographic. For example research has shown iPhone use is higher amongst young, higher educated professionals with higher levels of income (true) so if Chitika ad packages are preferred by websites catering more for this demographic, there will be a bias in the result.

Rik Myslewski: "should tamp down some "Peak Apple" rumblings"

What is this, civil war in The Register's editorial dept? Either that or it's a bit of a cheek considering it is The Register that has been publishing an ongoing stream of articles with the "Peak Apple" phrase in the headline, not anyone else.

Re: Rockstar claims to be independent from Apple and Microsoft

"I think Google's entire revenue stream has come from adverts"

Google have software patents in number of areas. 1) around link analysis which was central to the success of their search engine. 2). Their adwords patents cover the process for bidding for adwords, the key USP for their ad-platform which was the central reason their ad platform excelled over Yahoo's offering. These patents are pure software patents. Yahoo would dearly love to have implemented an adwords competitor but didn't and had to leave the business to Google.

"They have never attacked with patents"

Nonsense, Motorola have initiated multiple patent actions against multiple parties. More incidentally than either Apple or Rockstar. The US Trade department and EU commission have both found their attacks to be an "abuse of a dominant position."

"which is why MS et all formed Rockstar - so that they could attack Google"

You have ignored the fact Google were invited to join the consortium but declined.

"You seem to be supporting the school bully because someone is fighting back so they must be the aggressor which is frankly bollocks."

Neatly ignoring the logic of fact that Google hold software patents on Adwords predating any of this. Do you really think Google would not have sued Yahoo if Yahoo implemented adwords functionality when Google was eating their advertising revenues for breakfast?

And the fact is Google have form as a serial bully steamrollering IP owned by other companies and individuals. Youtube was built on copyright infringement (and recognising that they had to set aside a multi-billion dollar legal fund to fight the sue balls they were expecting but have since mitigated the risk by amending their policy and partnering with content owners). Google images is mostly a destination in itself and utilised copyrighted images without permission (but individual owners aren't bothered enough and the images aren't worth enough to sue over - take 1 cent off every user and, if you're Google, nothing will happen to you). Google maps cars were slurping private data with impunity and even hacking WiFi router security to do so (and it eventually emerged Google had lied about it being a management policy that they should do this). Let's not even start on what they were initially pushing for with Google Books. Then having grown a culture of operating with impunity, they copy functionality implemented patented by another big business and act all offended when they get sued... Bear in mind, in the recent book "Dogfight," Google's Chris DeSalvo admitted on first seeing the iPhone:

“As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’”

and you are seriously claiming Google were an innocent happy company going along minding their own business and would not have sued other companies infringing their server side software patents and Apple had no right to defend against Google infringements? Google are a fiercely competitive commercial entity that has steamrollered any business they think they can, and roundly abused IP owned by others until they bumped into Apple. I'm not claiming Apple are any better here (as you seem to be claiming for Google). I on the other hand, am merely pointing out they are businesses and this is the playing field on which they are competing and the proposition Google are some cuddly defender of the rights of independent engineers is woefully misguided.

@philip Lewis

If you spend your time throwing shit for hits you end up smelling of it.

You've supplied your own crotchetiness, but something is missing. Ah, I know, here's a virtual stick to wave at random strangers:

||

||

||

||

"Another analysts guess based on no data ... no news here then."

Spot on, the latest data is showing 5C sales are picking up nicely.

From what I have read, I strongly suspect the hold-up is more simply a battle of wills over a single important issue of business principle rather than being a simple matter of meeting on percentages. China mobile want a cut not just of sales of the handset, but of Appstore revenue and Apple have said, that's none of your business and we're not discussing it. China mobile are probably under the impression pressure will build on Apple as time goes on and they will cave. I expect there is an entry on the terms sheet saying Appstore revenue and followed by a percentage figure. I expect Apple have simply been returning the term sheet with that line struck out and that is where the negotiation has stalled.

A different cultural/market perspective could well be contributing to the impasse. China mobile being immersed in the Chinese market, see Android as a defining force and think it will be putting pressure on Apple. Apple, not being interested in the low end or even low to middle of the mid-range, don't see need to pay homage at the church of market share. China mobile will have thought pressure was building at about the point the Samsung 4S was launched, as it seemed like Apple were being marginalised globally and will have thought they just needed to wait. But in reality there is a more subtle dynamic and Apple's grip of the high-end market has been strengthening and that is the market where most of the profit is (all other handset manufacturers other than Samsung have combined profit share in negative numbers). Apple have in fact been continuing to make strong gains *in the market they want.* In Japan for example, after they shook on the NTT DoCoMo deal, they now have 75% share of the market, and whilst China and Japan are obviously very different, there is less difference when you are looking just at the high end segments of the market Apple are interested in (it is just a significantly smaller share of the entire market in China). Additionally the proportion of 5C sales has been increasing steadily (all the latest data in fact contradicts what this analyst is saying).

If I'm right about the reason for the impasse, China mobile may realise where Apple are coming from and agree the deal, or maybe they will continue to be confident Apple will have to cave them because of the value of the Chinese market to them. And on the other hand of course, perhaps Apple will cave, after all, there is no place for dogged principles when you're just talking about percentage shares of revenue even when there is a principle at stake for where that revenue is taken from.This is hardly big moral principles to be defended here; it isn't an arms deal. It's about making money.

I can't help but think this stand-off is actually highly symbolic of the global power struggle between the US and China. If the deal is concluded because Apple caves on such an issue, it's a symbolic moment. The only problem is, we are unlikely to get precise confirmation of the reason for the dispute or details of the agreed terms for years.

Re: PC

Great tip, thanks. I've been looking for something approaching F355 challenge for a while now. I've never been engaged by the desire to master a game as much as that one. As said, technically Forza and GT have all the ingredients, but somehow the cake they bake is too sanitised and anodyne. Its really frustrating to see it all there on the screen but just not get into it and feel it in the same way as with F355.